Score one point for the power of the internet in the SOPA/PIPA debate. With Google, Craigslist and Wikipedia among others leading a charge against federal legislation that could potentially block access to certain IP addresses, the early results seem to indicate a massive victory for the internet in regard to the ideals of free speech. The first battle may be almost over, but the issues at the heart of the debate will undoubtedly wax stronger and louder in the coming months.
The reason that the debate isn’t likely to die down anytime soon is that both supporters and detractors have valid points. The internet, at its core, is based upon freedom. It’s probably the greatest invention of any our lifetimes, and it’s been able to police itself somewhat smoothly over the years with limited government/legal involvement outside of some noticeable bumps in the road such as Napster. On the flipside, you have issues like intellectual property rights, copyright infringement and personal privacy, all of which are compromised without permission on a regular basis.
Contrary to what some extremist opinions may say, I really don’t believe that the U.S. government has any interest in becoming George Orwell’s “Big Brother” of 1984. They’ve got their hands full enough with the global economy, health care, social security, tax reformation, and other initiatives. Maybe I’m just naïve or overly optimistic, but I really believe that the spirit of the bill was aimed at protecting individual freedoms rather than restricting them, but that is all a matter of perspective. In practice though, it’s easy to see where the public outcry against vague powers that could definitely infringe upon our Constitutional rights was justly directed.
This isn’t a matter of a higher power telling its population what they can and cannot view as is the case in some areas of the world. It’s a discussion on how to close loopholes that violate individual ownership rights and undermine a free market system. Counterfeit goods (even medicines) pose a real threat to legitimate business. Although I always think that “free” is better, I understand that I can’t go into my local convenience store and take whatever music or movies that I want from that store and leave without paying for them. So why do so many people feel that it’s ok to rip pirated copies off the internet in the name of freedom? Is “freedom” really the issue in those circumstances?
Let’s think in the hypothetical for a moment. If there were a structure in place where corporations like Internet service providers or a U.S. government-created organization could verify the legality and authenticity of websites thereby eliminating things such as phishing or viruses (insert pause here for “that’s why people use MACs” joke), would that necessarily be a bad thing? If we could reduce the amount of internet counterfeiting, fraud, and identity theft, wouldn’t that be a positive thing to do? Certainly, we should all be careful to protect our own information, but we obviously aren’t doing a good enough job of it on our own as evidenced by consistently high rates of internet thefts.
I believe that a compromise is ultimately where things are headed. Consider the names of the flailing bills: “Stop Online Piracy Act” and “Protect Intellectual Property Act”. On the surface, I don’t think that either of those concepts merits public uproar. There will have to be a clearly defined scope that outlines what can and can’t be done in terms of internet regulation, and there will have to be a clear distinction that relieves any fears of potential government censorship. So-called “deep packet inspection” and IP tracking by internet providers would definitely create some significant privacy concerns, and those are just a couple of the many issues that would have to be addressed for a successful bill proposal.
Although any type of regulation can be viewed as a violation of personal freedom, there are already many instances of regulation in our everyday lives that we’ve learned to cope with. You don’t hear many people complaining about seat belt laws being a violation of personal freedom anymore. I suspect that in time, whatever internet regulations are created will be something that we all adjust to and can live with. Protection of property rights and the free enterprise system don’t have to conflict with our first amendment rights. In fact, they should work together harmoniously, and I think that is how the ultimate culmination of the issues will look.
The last couple of weeks have been an interesting ride of public debate, and contrary to what a few lawmakers have opined recently, I think that the power of the people to stand up and become more proactive in the legislative process is a good thing for America. In a world where Justin Bieber has more Twitter followers than Barack Obama, I think that it’s a step in the right direction when a public discussion grabs our attention as citizens of America and turns our focus toward some of the more important issues in the world. From that perspective, maybe what SOPA and PIPA did wasn’t so bad after all. For bills that were panned for promoting censorship, they sure did bring about an increased exercise of our freedom of speech.
Post Comment
